PURPOSE: Quality of life (QoL) is one of the most important outcomes in cancer care. Although a number of instruments to measure health-related QoL (HRQoL) exist, there are few suitable instruments to measure individual QoL. The best established instrument is the Schedule for the Evaluation of Individual Quality of Life (SEIQoL). The disadvantage of this questionnaire is its use of semi-structured interviews, which are very time-consuming. The purpose of our study was to transform the SEIQoL into an economical instrument that can be used in clinical trials with large samples. METHODS: We developed the SEIQoL-Questionnaire (SEIQoL-Q) on the basis of the SEIQoL-Direct Weighting (SEIQoL-DW) by transforming the interview guide into a written questionnaire. Patients (N = 1,108) in all three phases of radiation treatment (first consultation, ongoing irradiation, and aftercare) were asked to complete the SEIQoL-Q and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30. RESULTS: While the average HRQoL measured by the QLQ-C30 was 55.6, the average SEIQoL-Q index was 59.6. The most important life domain was "physical health," followed by "emotional well-being" and "family." Patients attributed the highest level of satisfaction to "home/housing," followed by "family" and "partnership." Male patients were shown to have a significantly better QoL than females. The SEIQoL-Q index correlates moderately with the QLQ-C30 functioning scale "global quality of life" [r = .42 (p < .001)]. CONCLUSIONS: According to our findings, the SEIQoL-Q appears to be a feasible and economical instrument for use in quantitative research among cancer patients in different stages of their disease.
PURPOSE: Quality of life (QoL) is one of the most important outcomes in cancer care. Although a number of instruments to measure health-related QoL (HRQoL) exist, there are few suitable instruments to measure individual QoL. The best established instrument is the Schedule for the Evaluation of Individual Quality of Life (SEIQoL). The disadvantage of this questionnaire is its use of semi-structured interviews, which are very time-consuming. The purpose of our study was to transform the SEIQoL into an economical instrument that can be used in clinical trials with large samples. METHODS: We developed the SEIQoL-Questionnaire (SEIQoL-Q) on the basis of the SEIQoL-Direct Weighting (SEIQoL-DW) by transforming the interview guide into a written questionnaire. Patients (N = 1,108) in all three phases of radiation treatment (first consultation, ongoing irradiation, and aftercare) were asked to complete the SEIQoL-Q and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30. RESULTS: While the average HRQoL measured by the QLQ-C30 was 55.6, the average SEIQoL-Q index was 59.6. The most important life domain was "physical health," followed by "emotional well-being" and "family." Patients attributed the highest level of satisfaction to "home/housing," followed by "family" and "partnership." Male patients were shown to have a significantly better QoL than females. The SEIQoL-Q index correlates moderately with the QLQ-C30 functioning scale "global quality of life" [r = .42 (p < .001)]. CONCLUSIONS: According to our findings, the SEIQoL-Q appears to be a feasible and economical instrument for use in quantitative research among cancerpatients in different stages of their disease.
Authors: Jeff A Sloan; Marlene H Frost; Rick Berzon; Amylou Dueck; Gordon Guyatt; Carol Moinpour; Mirjam Sprangers; Carol Ferrans; David Cella Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2006-06-23 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Camilla Zimmermann; Debika Burman; Nadia Swami; Monika K Krzyzanowska; Natasha Leighl; Malcolm Moore; Gary Rodin; Ian Tannock Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2010-03-30 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Charles S Cleeland; Jeff A Sloan; David Cella; Connie Chen; Amylou C Dueck; Nora A Janjan; Astra M Liepa; Rajiv Mallick; Ann O'Mara; Jay D Pearson; Yasuhiro Torigoe; Xin Shelley Wang; Loretta A Williams; Jeanie F Woodruff Journal: Cancer Date: 2012-08-28 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: N K Aaronson; S Ahmedzai; B Bergman; M Bullinger; A Cull; N J Duez; A Filiberti; H Flechtner; S B Fleishman; J C de Haes Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1993-03-03 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Nancy E Mayo; Ala' Aburub; Marie-Josée Brouillette; Ayse Kuspinar; Carolina Moriello; Ana Maria Rodriguez; Susan Scott Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2016-12-17 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: A M Giovannetti; E Pietrolongo; A Giordano; V Cimino; A Campanella; G Morone; A Fusco; A Lugaresi; P Confalonieri; F Patti; M G Grasso; M Ponzio; S Veronese; A Solari Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2016-04-28 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Jeannette Vogt; Franziska Beyer; Jochen Sistermanns; Jonas Kuon; Christoph Kahl; Bernd Alt-Epping; Susanne Stevens; Miriam Ahlborn; Christian George; Andrea Heider; Maria Tienken; Carmen Loquai; Kerstin Stahlhut; Anne Ruellan; Thomas Kubin; Andreas Dietz; Karin Oechsle; Anja Mehnert-Theuerkauf; Birgitt van Oorschot; Michael Thomas; Olaf Ortmann; Christoph Engel; Florian Lordick Journal: Oncologist Date: 2021-03-30
Authors: Dana Ketcher; Casidee Thompson; Amy K Otto; Maija Reblin; Kristin G Cloyes; Margaret F Clayton; Brian R W Baucom; Lee Ellington Journal: Palliat Med Date: 2020-11-21 Impact factor: 4.762
Authors: Anja Siegle; Matthias Villalobos; Jasmin Bossert; Katja Krug; Laura Hagelskamp; Johannes Krisam; Violet Handtke; Nicole Deis; Jana Jünger; Michel Wensing; Michael Thomas Journal: Trials Date: 2018-08-14 Impact factor: 2.279